THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs MANJUNATH K

- 1 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.2451 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-01.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.C. DESHMUKH, AGA)
AND:
1.
MANJUNATH K.,
S/O LATE GANGAIAH
AGED 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. KALLI PALYA,
DODAMASKAL POST, GULOOR HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND
DISTRICT PIN-572 122.
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
UDYOG SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-01.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANOHAR B.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SIDDARTH BABURAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE,

- 2 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2018 PASSED IN
APPLICATION NO.325/2011 BY THE KSAT, BANGALORE IN
ANNEXURE - A TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
14.10.2026
FOR ORDER ON COMING ON THIS DAY,
DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J., PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
Assailing with the order that is rendered by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru in
Application No.325/2011 dated 01.08.2018, State filed this
writ petition seeking this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari
and to quash the impugned order.

- 3 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
2. Heard Sri.S.C.Deshmukh, learned AGA who
represents the Petitioner, Sri.Manohar.B.K, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Siddarth Baburao,
learned counsel for respondent No.2. Also gone through
the contents of the affidavit given by the Deputy Director,
Department of School Education, Madhugiri.
3. The cause of action for knocking the doors of
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal as per the version
of respondent No.1 (hereinafter be referred to as the
applicant) is that, through Notification No.E(3) 831/2009-
10/PSC dated 04.08.2008, respondent No.2-Karnataka
Public Service Commission called for applications for filling
up the posts of Excise Guards (Male). The applicant
responded to that Notification and applied for the said post
under SC (Kannada) category. Thereafter, he appeared for
competitive examination and succeeded. Since he was
found to be suitable for the said post, respondent No.2
issued a letter dated 06.10.2010 directing him to produce
the originals of required documents. Accordingly, he
produced SSLC Certificate, Transfer Certificate and

- 4 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
Cumulative Record. The applicant was born on
15.06.1982. His date of birth is clearly mentioned in the
Transfer Certificate and Cumulative Record. However, due
to typographical error, his date of birth was wrongly
mentioned as 15.06.1980 instead of 15.06.1982 in SSLC
Certificate. Noticing the same, the concerned officials
directed the applicant to produce SSLC Certificate getting
his date of birth corrected within two days to consider his
candidature. On that, the applicant requested the
concerned authorities to issue SSLC Certificate correcting
his date of birth. The Deputy Director of Madhugiri Taluk
looked into the matter and addressed a letter dated
15.10.2010 to the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination Board, Bengaluru stating that the
date of birth in SSLC Certificate is wrongly mentioned as
15.06.1980 and thus, necessary correction is required to
be made. The applicant also submitted a representation to
respondent No.2 to consider his grievance and to select
and appoint him to the post he applied. However,
respondent No.2 published the provisional selection list

- 5 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
without considering the request of the applicant. Though
the applicant secured 231 marks, the name of the
candidate who secured lesser marks i.e. 228 was shown as
selected in the provisional selection list. The applicant also
filed a suit for declaration and correction of his date of
birth. In the meantime, respondent No.2 published the
final selection list also. While the thing stood thus,
concerned authorities corrected the date of birth in the
SSLC marks certificate of the applicant and have shown
his correct date of birth as 15.06.1982.
4. With aforementioned version, the applicant filed
an application before the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal, Bengaluru, seeking the Tribunal to quash the
final selection list and to include his name. The Tribunal
allowed the application and issued following directions to
the Government:
"In the light of completion of selection
process, mandamus can not be issued to the
KPSC. On the other hand a direction need to be
issued to the Government, ie., the 2nd
respondent, to appoint the applicant as Excise
Guard, if he is otherwise suitable, against a
direct recruitment vacancy or by creating

- 6 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
supernumerary post, as the case may be, within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
It is made clear that the appointment of the
applicant will be prospective from the date of
issue of appointment order."
Aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, State filed this writ
petition.
5. Making his submission on the merits of the
matter, learned AGA contended that onus vests upon the
applicant to produce all relevant documents which in turn
establishes that he holds required qualification for
appointment to the post he sought for. The applicant
produced his SSLC Marks Card at the time of verification of
certificates which reveals that he is barred by age. The
applicant took a plea that his date of birth is wrongly
mentioned in the SSLC Marks Card. On that, time was
granted to get the typographical error in respect of date of
birth corrected and to produce the corrected SSLC Marks
Card. However, the applicant could not produce the
corrected SSLC Marks Card within time. Therefore,

- 7 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
provisional and final selection lists were published and
thus, there is no illegality in publishing those lists.
6. Learned AGA further submitted that the
Tribunal allowed the application with an observation that
the typographical error has been corrected by virtue of the
judgment by a competent Civil Court. However, O.S.
No.89/2011 filed by the applicant before the Court of Civil
Judge, Tumkur for declaration and correction of his date of
birth was not pressed by him. Further more, once the
entire process of selection is completed, no candidate can
be permitted to enter into service and thus, the Tribunal
exceeded its power.
7. On the aspect of delay, learned AGA submitted
that the impugned order was passed in the year 2018, but
the writ petition was filed in the year 2021 and the delay
in challenging the order passed by the Tribunal is due to
lockdown imposed during COVID period and the time
taken for internal correspondence between different levels
of officials. Learned AGA thereby ultimately sought to

- 8 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
allow the writ petition and to quash the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Karnataka
Public Service Commission, endorsed the submission made
by learned AGA.
9. Vehemently opposing the submission made by
learned AGA, learned counsel for respondent No.1
submitted that the applicant is a person who has come
from a very rural background. He belongs to Scheduled
Caste. His parents are uneducated. He lost his father at his
very young age. By doing coolie work, his mother brought
him up and got him educated in a Government high
school. The applicant, a young boy between 17 and 18
years as on the date of completion of 10th standard i.e.
SSLC, on receiving the marks memo, had gone through
the marks he obtained. He never expected that his date of
birth will be wrongly mentioned by the concerned
authorities. Only when the certificates were verified by the
officials of respondent No.2 for selection to the post of
Excise Guard, he could notice that there was typographical

- 9 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
error in SSLC Marks Card with regard to his date of birth.
The date of birth of the applicant is 15.06.1982. In SSLC
Marks Card it was mentioned as 15.06.1980. Thus, in the
year instead of "1982", "1980" is mentioned. On that, the
applicant immediately took steps, made representation to
all concerned authorities to correct the typographical error
and he even filed a suit for declaration and correction of
his date of birth. In the meantime, the officials in the
Education Department realized their mistake and they
corrected the date of birth in SSLC Certificate and issued
the corrected SSLC Certificate. On that, the applicant
informed his advocate that the required correction was
made by the competent authority. His counsel informed
the Court and as the cause thus did not survive, the suit
was not pressed. The applicant again approached
respondent No.2 to consider his case and to give
appointment, but there was no response. Hence, the
applicant filed an application before the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal seeking necessary relief. As his
case was found to be genuine, Tribunal directed the State

- 10 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
to consider his case and to give appointment. Learned
counsel also stated that had the concerned authorities
were vigilant and had the SSLC Certificate contained
correct date of birth, the applicant could have secured job.
Learned counsel further submitted that to ascertain the
date of birth, respondent No.2-Karnataka Public Service
Commission directed the applicants who succeeded in the
competitive examination to produce SSLC or equivalent
marks card or transfer certificate or extract of cumulative
record. The applicant produced his transfer certificate as
well as the cumulative record which revealed the correct
date of birth. But those documents were not taken into
consideration which is illegal and unjustifiable. Learned
counsel stated that, error thus is committed both by the
petitioner-State as well as respondent No.2-Karnataka
Public Service Commission, and therefore, the writ petition
is liable to be dismissed.
10. Having heard the submission made by learned
counsel representing respective parties and upon giving

- 11 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
anxious consideration to the material brought on record,
the point that emerges for consideration is:
Whether there exists any infirmity in the
impugned order which is passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal
either in appreciating the facts of the case
or in applying the established principles of
law to the said facts, which in turn requires
interference of this Court exercising writ
jurisdiction?
11. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:
(i) Karnataka Public Service Commission issued
Notification No.E(3) 831/2009-10/PSC dated 04.08.2008
and called for applications for filling up the posts of Excise
Guards (Male).
(ii) The applicant applied to the post under SC
(Kannada) Category.
(iii) The applicant was permitted to appear for
competitive examination and accordingly he appeared.
(iv) The applicant was successful in the said
examination and therefore, respondent No.2 issued a
letter dated 06.10.2010 directing the applicant to produce
the required documents for verification. The applicant
accordingly produced the relevant documents.
(v) The verifying authority having found that the date
of birth of the applicant in SSLC Certificate is shown as
15.06.1980, whereas in the Transfer Certificate produced
by him it is shown as 15.06.1982, gave a week time to get

- 12 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
the SSLC Certificate rectified with regard to his date of
birth.
(vi) The applicant failed to produce the corrected
SSLC Certificate within the time granted.
(vii) The applicant gave representation to all
concerned authorities with regard to the typographical
error in the SSLC Certificate, and sought for its correction.
(viii) The applicant also filed a suit in OS No.89/2011
before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur.
(ix) In the meantime, concerned authority corrected
the date of birth and issued corrected SSLC certificate.
(x) The applicant not pressed the suit filed by him.
12. State is before this Court only on the ground
that correction of date of birth is a major correction which
has to be done through a decree of competent Court, but
as the same was done without such decree, such
correction is invalid and as the Tribunal rendered orders
with an observation that the correction was made basing
on the decree of the Court and as such correction is not
based on the decree of the Court, the order of the Tribunal
is required to be set aside.

- 13 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
13. For effective discussion and to have a holistic
approach to the lis taken up for consideration, the relevant
Circulars governing the field are required to be looked
into. The first Circular that was relied upon by the State
and is the one issued by Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Instruction, Bengaluru in Circular
No.C1 Aa5 (8) Sha.Shi.Jati: 23:89-90 dated 02.05.2000
regarding change of student's name, father's name,
adopted father's name, caste, date of birth etc. in the
student's school records. The relevant point in the said
Circular i.e. point No.4 reads as under:
" 4. After SSLC, if candidates seek
changes-or corrections in father's name, caste,
date of birth, or candidates name (excluding
minor typographical errors in the details
recorded as per school records), power is
hereby conferred to all Deputy Directors of
Public Instruction to permit corrections only if
the candidates produce a decree obtained from
a court of law."
14. Next circular is the one which is issued by
Government of Karnataka vide Circular No.ED 32 DTB
2008 dated 20.08.2009 regarding implementation of Court
Decree/Orders issued about correction of student's

- 14 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
name/parent's name, caste, date of birth, etc. in school
records. In the said Circular, the procedure of insisting
Court decrees as per Circular dated 02.05.2000 is relaxed
to some extent and for minor corrections regarding the
student's date of birth and father's surname/family name
alongside a student's name, when the cases are identical
to the examples given in the said Circular, directions were
issued not to insist for Court Decrees. Moving forward,
Government of Karnataka through Circular No.ED 100 DTB
2014 dated 26.10.2015 cancelled the earlier Circulars. In
that Circular it is mentioned that instructions were issued
to the Headmasters of respective schools to ensure that
student names, parents' name and date of birth are filled
out carefully in the OMR sheet strictly as per School
Admission Register without scope for errors. It is also
mentioned that in case of errors, the respective school
headmasters will be held responsible. Circular instructions
3, 5 and 6 are very relevant and therefore they are
extracted as under:
"3. If there are spelling errors, initial
corrections, or date of birth corrections in the

- 15 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
student's/ parents name in the SSLC marks
card, the concerned Block Education Officer shall
directly verify the original school admission
register and submit a proposal directly to the
Karnataka Secondary Education Examination
Board for necessary action.
4. xxx xxx xxx.
5. For students studying from Class 1 to
SSLC, if there are spelling errors in their names,
or if additions of father's name, surname, or
alias are required, or to correct mistakes made
while entering details in school records despite
valid supporting documents for date of birth
being available, a self-affidavit must be obtained
from the student's parents based on the Ration
Card or Aadhaar Card. It must be explicitly
stated in the affidavit that if the information
provided is found to be false, it shall be
punishable under the Indian Penal Code.On this
basis, without violating school admission rules,
the respective Block Education Officer shall take
action to effect corrections on June 1st of the
relevant year. While taking such action, as per
Rule 11(1) of the Karnataka Education Act 1983,
a child must have completed at least 5 years of
age to be admitted to school. Therefore, this
age limit must be kept in mind while correcting
dates of birth. If the corrected date of birth
results in an age lower than the mandatory
minimum age, it is necessary to produce a court
decree from a competent court.
6. For candidates after SSLC, if corrections
are required in student name, surname, parents'
name, date of birth, etc., in school
records/marks cards, in cases where court
decrees have been obtained, the District Deputy
Director shall examine the proposal as per
school admission rules upon receiving the
decree and issue appropriate correction orders
within 15 days of receipt."

- 16 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
15. No doubt, in the case on hand, necessary
correction was effected in the year 2010 itself. Therefore,
the Circular dated 26.10.2015 referred above does not
have any bearing. However, this Circular is referred only
to demonstrate that the Government having considered
the irreparable loss being caused to the students due to
errors committed by the Headmasters or concerned
authorities of the schools in mentioning the names of the
students, their parents' names and date of birth, relaxed
the stringent rule of insisting production of Court
Decrees/Orders in every case.
16. It is not the case of the petitioner-State that
the applicant, to gain employment has projected an
incorrect date of birth. The State is before this Court
holding that correction in the date of birth should be done
basing on a Decree of a Competent Court, but it was done
without such Decree. A common man i.e. the applicant
herein had a sense to approach the Competent Court of
Law and obtain a Decree for correction of the date of birth.
On the other hand, a responsible official of the State

- 17 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
Authority had no such knowledge that such correction
should not be done without a Decree of the Competent
Court. He, basing on the report submitted to him, carried
out the correction and issued the corrected SSLC
Certificate during the pendency of the suit. By such action
of the State Official, the suit filed by the applicant has
become infructuous. When the cause does not survive, the
Competent Court cannot pass any Decree. Therefore, the
act of the State has closed the doors of the applicant to
get the relief by following due procedure. Now without
taking any action against the official who erred, the State
has come before this Court stating that the correction was
done without the Decree of the Court. It is not the case
that the applicant himself corrected the certificate. The
SSLC Certificate was corrected by the official of the State
that too during the pendency of the suit. The suit for
declaration and correction of date of birth as per the
material available on record was presented on 20.01.2011.
The Official of the State Authority, corrected the date of
birth in SSLC Marks Memo on 23.03.2011. The suit

- 18 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
therefore was not pressed on 21.04.2011. Thus, under no
stretch of imagination, it can be held that the applicant
was at fault and therefore, he should be penalised by
denying employment.
17. Admittedly, one cannot approbate and
reprobate. The State cannot take advantage of its own
wrong and deny an individual his legitimate right.
18. Students, their parents or guardians will have
no control over the maintenance of different registers by
school authorities, the entries they make, the information
they furnish to higher authorities which ultimately reflect
in the Certificates whether it is in respect of Name,
Surname, Parents/Guardians name, Date of Birth, Caste
etc., nor are they responsible for the mistakes committed
by officials entrusted with those public duties.
19. A welfare State has a greater obligation to
protect the interest of subjects. It must set an example of
fairness in action, responsibility in deeds and
accountability in functioning. Courts cannot permit

- 19 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
administrative lapses of State defeat the legitimate rights
of Citizens.
20. In the case on hand, State has not only
became an author of injustice, but took shelter under the
very same circumstances to deny the lawful entitlement of
an innocent, his plate of meal. An un-employee cannot be
asked to pay the price of administrative negligence. An
aspirant of public employment who met all required
criteria and fulfilled all prescribed requirements should not
be deprived of an opportunity merely because of a
mistake of one official and improper exercise of authority
by another official. Fair, transparent and responsible
administrative system is the need of the hour and wish of
VIKSIT BHARAT.
21. Further more, as rightly submitted by learned
counsel for the applicant, the applicant ought to have been
considered by respondent No.2-Karnataka Public Service
Commission for his appointment. Respondent No.2-
Karnataka Public Service Commission through Notice No.
E(3)1010-1538/2010-11/PSC dated 06.10.2010 directed

- 20 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
the petitioner to produce the original documents for
verification. Said notice (translated copy)reads as under:
"To
Manjunatha K (24)
Manjunatha K, S/O. Late Gangaiah Kallipalya
Doddamaskal Post, Gulur Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk. Tumkur Dist.
PIN-572122.
In accordance with the details mentioned in your application in
respect of the competitive examination for the post of Excise Guard in
Excise Department held on 13/12/2009, for verification of your original
records, intimated to present on 25/10/2010 at 10.00 am at Karnataka
Public Service Commission, Udyoga Soudha, Bangalore-01
Only on receipt of this notice, you should not considered that you
have selected for the post. Your selection is subject to the verification of the
qualification, date of birth and reservation certificate mentioned in On - Line
application
The original documents to be produced:
1) Marks card of S.S.L.C or equivalent qualification
2) S.S.L.C or equivalent qualification marks card/transfer certificate/Extract
of Cummulative Record for date of birth proof.
3) Caste Certificate:
a) Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe candidates Form D
b) Category-I candidates Form E
c) Category 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B candidates Form F
The above certificate should have been obtained as on 09.09.2009
the last date for submission of application, obtained from the Tahsildar. The
reservation certificates obtained after 09.09.2009 will not be considered.
4) Ex-Servicemen: a) The candidates requesting for
reservation should produce the
relieving letter.
b) If any person served as soldier
or non Soldier cadre in navy,
airforce if deceased Or injured

- 21 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
while in service, their Dependent
family members should obtain The
certificate in this regard.
5) Rural Reservation: Regarding the study in rural area
from 1 to 10th standard should
obtain certificate in Form 2 from
the Head Master and get signed
from the block Development officer
and the candidates seeking rural
reservation under the general
category should submit the
certificate for not coming under
Creamy Layer in Form No.1 as on
09.09.2009.
6) Kannada medium The candidates who have
Reservation studied in Kannada medium from
1 to 10th Std Should obtain the certificated
from the Head Master of the school.
7) Project homeless Should obtain certificate from the
Reservation Tahsildar in Form 3.
8) The candidates who are already in Gov, service should obtain NOC
from the recruitment authority and produce the same. It should consists of
date of appointment and period or service.
Conditions
1) Should produce the self attested copies in duplicate along with the
original of the above certificates.
2) The candidates should bring all the original certificates of reservation
mentioned in online application.
3) The reservation certificate will be considered only if the candidates
already requested reservation in online application.
4) Travel Allowance, Dearness allowance will not paid.

- 22 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
5) The candidate who are absent for verification of the original
documents, another chance will not be provided and they will be
dropped from the selection process.
6) If any of the candidate not intends to select for the said post, should
inform the same in writing to the commission.
7) The candidates who are requesting for various reservation should
submit the certificate only in the valid format, failing which their
reservation will be rejected.
Sd/-
(L.S.Kukken)
Assistant Secretary
Karnataka Public Service Commission"
22. Thus, for proof of date of birth, respondent
No.2- Karnataka Public Service Commission through the
aforementioned notice directed petitioner to produce SSLC
or equivalent qualification marks card or transfer
certificate or extract of cumulative record. There is no
denial of the fact that the petitioner produced his transfer
certificate as well as extract of cumulative record in proof
of his date of birth and both said documents i.e. a transfer
certificate and extract of cumulative record goes to show
that his date of birth is 15.06.1982. Therefore, when the
Karnataka Public Service Commission has given an option
to the applicant either to produce his SSLC or equivalent

- 23 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
qualification Marks Card or Transfer Certificate or Extract
of Cumulative Record, it should not have based its reliance
solely upon SSLC Certificate to form an opinion in respect
of date of birth. If the version of respondent No.2-
Karnataka Public Service Commission is that only contents
of SSLC Marks memo will be considered to ascertain the
date of birth, the case could have been otherwise.
However, it gave an option to the candidates to produce
any one of the given documents for proof of date of birth.
Therefore, even on this count, neither the petitioner nor
respondent No.2 should contend that the applicant is at
fault in not producing the corrected SSLC marks memo
within the given time so as to consider his candidature.
.
23 Surprisingly, it is not even the case of
petitioner-State that the date of birth mentioned originally
is the correct one and thereby the correction effected is
improper or without basis.
24. Now coming to the last point that is in respect
of delay, the application was disposed of by the Karnataka
State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru on 01.08.2018.

- 24 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
Admittedly, by that date the pandemic due to COVID was
not there. Lockdown started in the month of March 2020
only. Thus, before the outbreak of pandemic, more than a
year was available for the State to approach this Court
vindicating its grievance. But it did not do so. This Writ
Petition was filed in the month of February 2021, if we
could say so, very leisurely. For State, this issue may be
one among thousands or lakhs. However, for an un-
employee, to earn bread and butter, every day is a
challenge. Therefore, the State cannot take shelter under
the umbrella of pandemic and seek to condone the
inordinate delay. Thus, on every count the State fails.
Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the present case we
decline to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal. Accordingly, question raised is answered in the
negative.
25. Resultantly, the following:

- 25 -
WP No. 2451 of 2021
ORDER
dismissed
Writ petition is .
Time for 8 weeks is granted to the State to comply
with the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM